#46 President Joe Biden

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 

If it was censored, how do you know about it?  There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies.  Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored?  Give me a fucking break.  Too many snowflakes. 

This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t.  I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are. 

so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?

for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged. 

none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product. 

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 

If it was censored, how do you know about it?  There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies.  Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored?  Give me a fucking break.  Too many snowflakes. 

This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t.  I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are. 

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 

If it was censored, how do you know about it?  There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies.  Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored?  Give me a fucking break.  Too many snowflakes. 

This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t.  I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are. 

so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?

for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged. 

none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product. 

I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful. 

JB16057 said:

tbergs said:

JB16057 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

haven't we been hearing about hunter's laptop for over 2 years now? how has this been suppressed?

Fucking Giuliani had it....not suppressed

How is this not suppression?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521823-50-former-intelligence-officials-warn-ny-post-story-sounds-like-russian

My favorite part of this:

Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.” 

And he was exactly right!

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 

If it was censored, how do you know about it?  There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies.  Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored?  Give me a fucking break.  Too many snowflakes. 

This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t.  I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are. 

so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?

for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged. 

none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product. 

I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful. 

So govt workers decide what is newsworthy.  You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies 

JB16057 said:

tbergs said:

JB16057 said:

tbergs said:

JB16057 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

haven't we been hearing about hunter's laptop for over 2 years now? how has this been suppressed?

Fucking Giuliani had it....not suppressed

How is this not suppression?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521823-50-former-intelligence-officials-warn-ny-post-story-sounds-like-russian

My favorite part of this:

Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.” 

And he was exactly right!

I don't think that means what you think it means...

The laptop was legit.

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 

If it was censored, how do you know about it?  There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies.  Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored?  Give me a fucking break.  Too many snowflakes. 

This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t.  I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are. 

so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?

for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged. 

none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product. 

I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful. 

So govt workers decide what is newsworthy.  You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies 

Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.  

So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee.  What happens when gov't is in recess?  What happens when 'breaking news' happens?  Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally?  Who writes the stories?  Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed?  Can they veto news?  Why not? 

I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment. 

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

tbergs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

dankind said:

Do you have evidence that they are not?

So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 

I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 

People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.

Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 

If it was censored, how do you know about it?  There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies.  Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored?  Give me a fucking break.  Too many snowflakes. 

This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t.  I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are. 

so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?

for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged. 

none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product. 

I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful. 

So govt workers decide what is newsworthy.  You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies 

Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.  

So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee.  What happens when gov't is in recess?  What happens when 'breaking news' happens?  Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally?  Who writes the stories?  Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed?  Can they veto news?  Why not? 

I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment. 

You’re not following me. We’re talking about social media. Nothing would change about how news is written. Everything still gets printed. But Facebook, Twitter, and Google wouldn’t be able to just choose what is and isn’t disinformation without being challenged on it. If something is challenged, then this bipartisan coalition of regulators step in and does something. Maybe a vote between them on whether or not it truly is disinformation after extensive fact-checking.